03-24-2011, 09:25 PM
Is Libya our fight? Are we interlopers? Can we make the rules for the rest of the world? Is Obama worse than Bush?
"Mr. Obama has engaged U.S. forces - risking precious blood and treasure - without a clear strategy for victory. He recklessly has allowed his country to be sucked into a conflict without a real national debate or consensus. His policy is shoddy, half-baked and irresponsible. It is amateur hour at the White House.
The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention’s lack of constitutional and legal authority. It is an illegal war. The Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the use of military force. Unless American territory has been invaded or U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action. To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.
That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by the people’s representatives. The most serious act of any state is to use military force - to demand that countrymen risk their lives on behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial president.
Mr. Obama claims he does not need congressional authority. His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy. His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints. Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.
His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Mr. Obama said in a speech that the “president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery - which makes no sense.
Moreover, what “imminent threat” does Col. Gadhafi’s regime pose to the United States? None. He is a capricious killer who rightly is reviled by most of the Libyan people. Yet it is their war, not ours. America should use military force only to protect its vital national interests."
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute. (Irish political oranization/educational charity)
Rest of this commentary can be found at its source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011...n-/?page=2
"Mr. Obama has engaged U.S. forces - risking precious blood and treasure - without a clear strategy for victory. He recklessly has allowed his country to be sucked into a conflict without a real national debate or consensus. His policy is shoddy, half-baked and irresponsible. It is amateur hour at the White House.
The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention’s lack of constitutional and legal authority. It is an illegal war. The Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the use of military force. Unless American territory has been invaded or U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action. To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.
That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by the people’s representatives. The most serious act of any state is to use military force - to demand that countrymen risk their lives on behalf of their nation. Hence, congressional input and approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial president.
Mr. Obama claims he does not need congressional authority. His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy. His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints. Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.
His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of war. On Dec. 20, 2007, Mr. Obama said in a speech that the “president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery - which makes no sense.
Moreover, what “imminent threat” does Col. Gadhafi’s regime pose to the United States? None. He is a capricious killer who rightly is reviled by most of the Libyan people. Yet it is their war, not ours. America should use military force only to protect its vital national interests."
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute. (Irish political oranization/educational charity)
Rest of this commentary can be found at its source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011...n-/?page=2